Controversy on A/C test data...(long!)...

[Grumble]

Gentlemen,

Having been flying online sim since Airwarrior on Genie @ 2400 Baud and such the debate about flight models for “X”(insert model here) airplane being “Porked” or “Inaccurate” have long been a source of heated discussion..  They have been both a curse and a mixed blessing depending on whether your aircraft is “percieved” as being “correct” or “Porked”.  In the late 80’s and early 90’s we all used to thrash Kesmai about this and in retrospect they were doing the best they could with what they had available. (I think even HiTech will agree with this)
Now here we are again and the story is still the same.  “X” plane’s climb is off 3.7575752362% compared to test reports I found in “yngn3738 report #375ns7 in the book ‘The Big Book of Cool Plane Facts and Pretty Colored Pictures’.  Well its time that we all realized a few things.
First of all ,pilots underwent training on different A/C and were able to develop their skills over due time and course often from Veterans and experienced officers.  
Second, Test reports are just that ‘TEST REPORTS’.  Often time manufacturers did these under ideal circumstances in weather and temperature with the aircraft looked over by top mechanical engineers and expert mechanics.  The planes were in ‘Test ready’ configurations and flown under ideal conditions to assertain the ‘BEST’ possible performance of the aircraft.  Whether or not the company producing it was under contract by the government or  it was competing business, it is and has always been every designers hope to have its creation perform at its peak.  There is no doubt that the aviation industry in every country wanted its fighters and bombers to be the best whether in peacetime or in war.
We see these discrepancies most powerfully when comparing manufacturer ‘Test’ data versus the same aircrafts data when flown by an enemy nation as a captured example.  The gap in this data is the result of the following:
1.)   Aircraft performance of manufactured aircraft will always be different from figures of manufacturers ‘test’ aircraft.  Variences in Tolerances and guidelines will no doubt be different.
2.)   Different countries ‘Quality Control’ varied depending on wartime conditions and capabilities as the war (i.e. for A.H. -WW2) continued.
3.)   No matter how good intelligence for any given nation is the chances that any pilot could another’s plane for a few hours and master it are false.  For additional info just read a test pilots biography of his experiences and then reach your own conclusions.  I recommend Jeffrey Quill’s (Supermarines Chief Test Pilot’s biography) book.
4.)   Ground Crews misunderstanding of another companies design and specifications for maintenance and care of powerplants and avionics as well as airframes.

Manufactured aircraft had varying levels of tolerance in airframe and powerplant design that created a wide range of performance figures for any given 2 planes of the same type even if only seperated by 50 serial numbers.  This was for all nations and as such should be considered with the wide range of data that exist from different yet reputable sources.  For example, the Luftwaffe’s test data on a captured La-5FN was no where near the data from Lavochkins bureau.  At one point being a variance of 35MPH+.

Ground Crew experience played a pivotal role in maintaining A/C performance and serviceability.  Every combat pilot will underscore his role in his record and gladly thank his groundcrew as being the sole reason for his success.  Insert any biography here; Erich Hartmanns,  quotes from Bud Anderson, any pilot period.

Weather, yes, weather from clear to cloudy from spring to winter all these things played a role in plane performance.

So of all of these are do any of them make a difference in this sim? (AH)  Atually, NO!.  However, it could be argued either way whether a variance factor should be implemented.  

Summary;

If no variance is implemented then we are left with the question of which data is correct and the answer really is “all of them!”.  They each were correct in their instances and given situations.  Therefore, let us all not endeavor to jockey data to create our favorite plane as the best it ‘could’ be but to better develop our combat skills so that one day when all of the above factors are added to our sims that we can rely on abilities and not on a ‘perfect’ plane to carry the day.


Sincerly,

KNOCK

aka Norlyn

[Ripsnort]

What did he just say?


Anyway, the F4U has been porked since I first flew it in AW when I payed $5 an hour for it!
 

[Westy]

Hallelujah Ivan!!

Course if someone does find the FM is off and they (HTC) recognize it? They do fix it here  

-Westy

[Tac]

You have to submit an edited version of whatever data you find. Remember, the man will only read mispelled documents, otherwise he might misunderstand them.

riht hytek?  

[Jekyll]

I would imagine that most of the 'porked' calls stem from the simple fact that NONE of us know on what data the aircraft are modelled.

It's always been seen as some kind of big 'trade secret' for some reason.

If companies like HTC and even IEN simply said, "We've modelled the P51-D based on 1943 NACA report 19746" we would all then have the opportunity to look at the report, compare the specified performance with that of the model, and point out any discrepancies.

But so long as flight-game companies continue to keep their paying customers in the dark, there are ALWAYS going to be conflicting opinions as to what constitutes the best available evidence for a particular aircraft's performance.

On the other side of the coin, I can understand why those same companies refuse to identify the data sources they have used - it makes it much easier to 'playbalance' the aircraft set if your customers have no idea what data you are relying on.

Developer 1: "Hmmm, looks like this model of the (insert name of favourite aircraft) is gonna spank every other aircraft in the arena".
Developer 2: "That's OK, lets play around with its damage model so that the first round that hits it automatically kills its engine."
Developer 1: "Great idea ... problem solved!"

 

------------------
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Chapter 13, verse 11

[BBGunn]

I think I get the gist of Grumbles post. But when it comes to something like the P38's dive brakes or lack thereof -I say the appropriate thing to do would be to fix em.  I can live with maximum speed being off some but the lack of function in the 38L's dive breaks takes away from its capabilities as a fighter significantly.  Notice that when the flaps on the 51B are set to first position there is nose rise as it should be with the P38L.  Etc..............

[Jekyll]

 

Originally posted by Westy:
Hallelujah Ivan!!

Course if someone does find the FM is off and they (HTC) recognize it? They do fix it here  

-Westy

Actually Westy, I think what Grumble/Norlyn/Knock is saying is that there are such great discrepancies between manufacturer's tests - Quality Control tests - captured examples tests that its well-nigh impossible to arrive at a FM that all will agree with.

Ever seen any 'captured example' reports on the P-51D, or Spitfire IX ?  I wonder how well these planes flew in the hands of their enemies?

------------------
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Chapter 13, verse 11

[F4UDOA]

Jekyll,

I have seen pictures of P-51D's captured by the Nazi's. They where evauluated by the Luftwaffe Grupen Waffen Shniztle eaten Cammando guy's   or something like that. Seriously I would pay good money to see their evaluation report. If it still exist.

[Daff]

"Course if someone does find the FM is off and they (HTC) recognize it? They do fix it here "

Well, that the P-47D-30 should have 2600hp at 64" MAP seems  widely recognized, yet it doesnt have that in AH?.

Daff

------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
 www.56thfightergroup.org
This is Yardstick, follow me"

[Wulf09]

I see lots of threads concerning FMs of various planes...I agree with Grumble. But from my point of view the basic FM of AH is missing or does not have correctly modelled few things as I realised testing all the planes modelled in AH. After that discovery I was amazed that few were writing about the problems with the BASIC FM...Now...this is only MY opinion and may be wrong but I believe it to be correct otherwise I wouldn't write this  ...For me is a realistic FM that matters in the game and it is the thing that should have the TOP priority. Tho in AH I saw basic FM values added only later with various patches...IMO it is not the way to build a sim...So I can just calmly watch some of you "killing" each other trying to prove some specific data to be right or wrong. In simple words: Ah doesn't have the roof and you wanted to get all the furniture in the house already...I can only simphateticly grin at this   And PLEASE don't get offended I just want to point to something that IMO has been overlooked. Have fun everyone and chk six.

 Wulf

[Naudet]

I agree with Grumble in most parts, especially that manufactures data or often from test birds that were maintained by best ground crews and best material.

And its right, that planes that were test by the enemy often suffered from missing materials or the engine etc. simple gettting old or not maintained right.

But if a plane doesnt even math this performance data. Than there is a mahor prob.

And as a 2nd point, i always get the feeling that most allied planes are modeled on the manufactures data, while the axis planes are modeled based on the data of allied flight trials. And so there appear huge diverences, cause u pit a "brand new" vs. a "wore out" plane.
one example, is the following, all GE pilots that flew FW190 stat that the 190 was the fastest plane on the deck till the end of the war (on the west front).
Bob Goebel said in an interview that he was bounce in his P51 by FW190As over italy, and had to fly on WEP for 10+ min (yes the P51 engine survied this) to get away, during the dive, the FW190 could hold the distance, once on the deck, Goebel got away slowly, still staying on WEP, cause he knew that if he put thte throttle back the FW190 would close.
I dont see in Ah were a FW190 A can follow a P51 through a dive and on the deck without thte P51 extending pretty fast.

[Tac]

"something like the P38's dive brakes or lack thereof"

P-38 has dive FLAPS, not dive breaks. But they are kapputt too. Dive flaps do not pull nose up as it is said in reports (refer to Widewing on this). Fowler flaps seem way off, stall and spin characteristics are laughably fubar.